DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

I'd preserve the Brown Palace Hotel or buildings that should have been preserved, like the Tabor Opera House any day. If not wanting to preserve every Sears catalog bungalow makes me anti-historic preservation, then so be it. We may as well preemptively preserve slot homes since they're going to be a unique slice of Denver architecture that was only allowed for a very limited period of time in our short history as a city.

How does an urbanist end up being so closed-minded? This is like reading a hybrid of me as a 19 year old online urbanist, and the New Yorker editorial page.

The older I've gotten, and more context I've taken in, and the more I've evolved on "what deserves to be preserved." I've learned to see more potential in both existing buildings, and vacant lots (infill sites). I like to maximize both, not just one or the other.

It blows my mind that some mid-century ranch houses are Historic nowadays. Then show me a chic, California contemporary MCM ranch in Krisana or Englewood, and I get it. Maybe a few of the slot homes will be interesting in 50 years. NOLA has done amazing things with shotgun shacks, not all that different.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

How does an urbanist end up being so closed-minded? This is like reading a hybrid of me as a 19 year old online urbanist, and the New Yorker editorial page.

Bro, you're literally advocating for wholesale preservation of slot home neighborhoods. Do you even hear yourself? We're in multiple crises in this city! If saving what you personally consider to be pretty architecture trumps homelessness, gentrification, rampant unaffordability, the climate crisis, personal property rights, and half a dozen other priorities and values then I consider that closed minded.

[Arapahoe]

Originally Posted by Arapahoe

JLL is now marketing both of those lots together -- so if that was a previous obstacle, it is not any longer.

here is the JLL marketing video for 17th and California -- touting Denver and possible tower configurations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfsuguLdbSg

[Ndj]

Call me crazy but in a world where so many people are experiencing housing insecurity, 99.99% of single-family residential structures have no business being preserved.

[mhays]

Even if you open up zoning in the SFR areas (theoretically)....a lot of SFRs will remain. There's simply not demand to fill 60 square miles (or whatever) with new stuff at say an additional 10,000 per square mile.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

It blows my mind that some mid-century ranch houses are Historic nowadays. Then show me a chic, California contemporary MCM ranch in Krisana or Englewood, and I get it. Maybe a few of the slot homes will be interesting in 50 years. NOLA has done amazing things with shotgun shacks, not all that different.

Why does that blow your mind? Its old shit. What should be really blowing your mind is that neighborhoods such as Bear Valley, Fort Logan, Hampden, and Montbello are eligible to be historic. Ranches, split levels, no-eclectic, no-colonial, etc. are all examples of building vernacular that are on par with Sears Catalog bungalows and worthy of similar preservation.

[DenvertoLA]

Originally Posted by Ndj

Call me crazy but in a world where so many people are experiencing housing insecurity, 99.99% of single-family residential structures have no business being preserved.

destroying existing housing is not going to help and isn't good for the planet. Housing insecurity and homelessness is a policy choice.

Allowing vacation rentals, foreign investors and private equity to eat up supply is much more a direct threat than existing single-family residence. IMO

[Ndj]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

destroying existing housing is not going to help and isn't good for the planet. Housing insecurity and homelessness is a policy choice.

Allowing vacation rentals, foreign investors and private equity to eat up supply is much more a direct threat than existing single-family residence. IMO

I'm not saying they should be torn down. I'm saying they shouldn't have any special protections and the land should be able to be developed to it's highest and best use if the property owner desires.

All those other things you mentioned should also be addressed. It's not a binary issue.

[kemachs]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

destroying existing housing is not going to help and isn't good for the planet. Housing insecurity and homelessness is a policy choice.

Allowing vacation rentals, foreign investors and private equity to eat up supply is much more a direct threat than existing single-family residence. IMO

It seems like the bolded is a huge issue that nobody is talking about (other than Reddit commenters). Are there any laws we can pass locally or statewide that will prevent these equity firms from buying up starter homes? It is beyond infuriating to hear that they want to turn us all into 'lifelong renters'...taking away one of the few opportunities middle-class people have at building some semblance of wealth

[The Dirt]

Umm, the elephant in the room is that we've artificially constrained housing supply to such an extent that 40% equity gains are a thing. Equity firms are a symptom, not the disease. If supply wasn't constrained, homes wouldn't be retirement (or investment) vehicles. Property is a depreciating asset, yet we've got people making 6-7 figures on it.

As for short term rentals, if you look at the data, the vast majority of these aren't evil landlords looking to make a quick buck, but ordinary people trying to supplement their income in order to make payments on their properties.

Christ, this is the most frustrating thing about us liberals. We only look at the downstream effects and immediately fall all over ourselves to do the most basic, ineffective, but most virtue signaling thing that we can to address a much more complex problem. Maybe we can form some citizen committees to draft some recommendations in 2 years, while we're at it.

[kemachs]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Umm, the elephant in the room is that we've artificially constrained housing supply to such an extent that 40% equity gains are a thing. Equity firms are a symptom, not the disease. If supply wasn't constrained, homes wouldn't be retirement (or investment) vehicles. Property is a depreciating asset, yet we've got people making 6-7 figures on it.

As for short term rentals, if you look at the data, the vast majority of these aren't evil landlords looking to make a quick buck, but ordinary people trying to supplement their income in order to make payments on their properties.

Christ, this is the most frustrating thing about us liberals. We only look at the downstream effects and immediately fall all over ourselves to do the most basic, ineffective, but most virtue signaling thing that we can to address a much more complex problem. Maybe we can form some citizen committees to draft some recommendations in 2 years, while we're at it.

I agree that the committee recommendations are toothless (see the Near Northwest Area planning initiative, that will basically just suggest some fun ideas that might be adopted 3 years down the road), but the current reality is what it is. Property in Denver is a super desirable investment for these firms at the moment, and with this city being the NIMBY shitshow that it is, I'm just wondering if there is a short-term fix to slow the flood of these salivating equity vultures. Also you can't argue that their entry into the market (where they compete with all of us and the California refugees) isn't further driving home values up.

I may be a liberal, but I'm also a realist, and the current reality is that many boomers don't want to change jack in regard to zoning. Maybe once some more of them die out, and/or our council grows a spine, we can upzone the whole city. But until then...

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by kemachs

It seems like the bolded is a huge issue that nobody is talking about (other than Reddit commenters). Are there any laws we can pass locally or statewide that will prevent these equity firms from buying up starter homes? It is beyond infuriating to hear that they want to turn us all into 'lifelong renters'...taking away one of the few opportunities middle-class people have at building some semblance of wealth

Oh come on, this is a micro-micro-issue in the market. The huge issue is that from 2010 to 2019 Denver added 127K people and 53K units of housing. For comparison, from 2000 to 2010, 45K people and 35K units of housing were added. One decade had a net deficit of 10K and the other had a net deficit of 74K. One decade saw housing prices appreciate modestly while the other had seen appreciation that's bordered on the asinine.

There are a host of factors that have contributed to the lack of housing growth that have been discussed ad nauseam here, but the overall macro trend is that housing starts have not kept pace with population growth, reducing the natural vacancy rate that is in the market to the point that massive pressure has been applied to the market curves on both sides.

It's as simple as that. We need more housing on all levels with private and public initiatives focused on doing so by increasing supply and lowering opportunity cost. Can we go back to what it was? Probably not unless massive outward migration from the Front Range occurs. So we need to triage and stabilize the market at this new equilibrium. Until then, I'll bank my 75% equity appreciation in just over half a decade and expect more of the same while the Council navel gazes at inclusionary zoning and toothless neighborhood area plans.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Probably not unless massive outward migration from the Front Range occurs.

Let's explore this option for a moment...

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Arapahoe

here is the JLL marketing video for 17th and California -- touting Denver and possible tower configurations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfsuguLdbSg

I hadn't seen this particular video before.

If Harbinger Development is under pressure to get out from under, my guess is they'll suffer a significant loss. Did they borrow the $7.5 million to buy part of the land? They're now obligated to make payments on the ground lease they executed. Slick videos aside they're in a pickle.

--------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Ndj

Call me crazy but in a world where so many people are experiencing housing insecurity, 99.99% of single-family residential structures have no business being preserved.

Anybody actually paying attention to who's building new product? It's primarily REITs or similar groups who are still raising money and 'need' to spend it. What are they building? Where are they building? They is still tons and tons of land available, some of which has 'plans' but not so much independent building going on.

The vision of scraping homes and building new affordable units is fantasy land. Who or what developer is interested in building for people who have trouble paying the rent/house pmt? Ironically the cost for doing this is considerably higher than what is currently be developed by REIT's etc.

Originally Posted by mhays

Even if you open up zoning in the SFR areas (theoretically)....a lot of SFRs will remain. There's simply not demand to fill 60 square miles (or whatever) with new stuff at say an additional 10,000 per square mile.

Dude, this is the 2nd time recently we've been able to agree on something. What's happening?

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

destroying existing housing is not going to help and isn't good for the planet. Housing insecurity and homelessness is a policy choice.

Allowing vacation rentals, foreign investors and private equity to eat up supply is much more a direct threat than existing single-family residence. IMO

This is probably the best comment you've ever posted. Things are getting strange around here.

With respect to homeless etc here's what is so fascinating. Down here, Maricopa County (PHX metro) which has over 4.5 million people already is ON FIRE. Affordability is (largely) gone as rents and home prices have gone up ~30% over the last 15 months.

Here's the conundrum

Being a border state, we get new arrivals everyday. These 'New to America' own only the clothes they wore getting here. That's it. But since there is NO SHORTAGE of jobs, they find a job and are grateful for the work. So much for your homeless argument.

[Ndj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

The vision of scraping homes and building new affordable units is fantasy land.

The vision is allowing density in places where the market desires it without the constraint of historic preservation for large swaths of vernacular residential architecture and overly restrictive zoning. Houses get scraped for density all the time. I don't know why you think it's fantasy? I never suggested single family homes should be unilaterally replaced with subsidized housing which seems to be what you are implying.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Let's explore this option for a moment...

I love macro-economic trends etc. But like most things it's always easier to explain things in hindsight.

The only way for Denver's urban core to be more affordable is if land values crash and/or demand for housing crashes. Given the irrational exuberance, should the helicopter money evaporate, it's not impossible.

While the apartment construction pace is off peak levels it seems more than healthy enough that this market could soften more going forward. It's compounded by how much the flight for more space continues.

Denver is not the economic engine that Seattle is (for example); still it seems to continue to percolate.

Taking in and observing the future will be so much fun.

---------------------------

Originally Posted by Ndj

The vision is allowing density in places where the market desires it without the constraint of historic preservation for large swaths of vernacular residential architecture and overly restrictive zoning. Houses get scraped for density all the time. I don't know why you think it's fantasy? I never suggested single family homes should be unilaterally replaced with subsidized housing which seems to be what you are implying.

It won't pencil.

Unless the rate of return is high enough it won't happen which means you can add some product at the margin that will STILL be expensive and you're looking at years and years to accomplish very little. There's no way to keep up with increasing demand from in-migration except to price people out.

I love the 'affordable housing' initiatives by the city. They do a nice job with this.

The Greek fellow in charge of the old CDOT headquarters land assemblage is waiting his turn for LIHTC's in order to build the affordable housing he has promised. It's been a couple of years; the land just sits there. It all just takes time.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Let's explore this option for a moment...

Ethnic cleansing based civil war or ecological collapse are two methods we could use. I propose AZ as a test case for both by cutting off the Central Arizona Project. Once the AZ fundies start shelling Pheonix to secure their aquifer reserves to keep the rural way of life we can see if a migrant exodus develops.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Ethnic cleansing based civil war or ecological collapse are two methods we could use. I propose AZ as a test case for both by cutting off the Central Arizona Project. Once the AZ fundies start shelling Pheonix to secure their aquifer reserves to keep the rural way of life we can see if a migrant exodus develops.

There has been tons written on the topic this summer. One of the better pieces related to Colorado is this CPR piece.
That was new information to me that Colorado (and other upstream states) are being required to release water from their reservoirs.

According to ASU the CAP (using Colorado river water) provides 36% of AZ's water supply; the Salt River Project provides 21% while ground water (from various sources) provides 40%.

It is possible that some of the ranchers/farmers will soon lose a part of their allocation. Many have already started investing in high efficiency-low water usage crops. Won't solve all their problem but will enable them to survive.

Interestingly, this summer has seen a heavy monsoon season. All the 'dry' has been to the NW of AZ.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

There has been tons written on the topic this summer. One of the better pieces related to Colorado is this CPR piece.
That was new information to me that Colorado (and other upstream states) are being required to release water from their reservoirs.

It was news to most people. But they buried the lead with the hyperlink mentioning keeping hydro power going as that was the main reason for the drains in order to keep AHP flowing to WAPA CRSP customers. Most hydro power in the Western US goes to rural co-ops to keep electric rates low for agricultural interests. If Glen Canyon and Hoover can't produce... well those communities would be royally fucked.

It's quite terrifying how much of the rural West is underpinned by cheap hydro that has no substitute.

[TakeFive]

Since wong raised the topic

What we have here is yet one more example of too-liberal interests and their lawyers blocking a critical piece of infrastructure. Believe it or not, the Colorado Front Range is more "water constrained" than Phoenix which has been planning and investing for over a 100 years.

Boulder County Cancels Gross Reservoir Expansion Hearings Citing Denver Water Lawsuit
July 27, 2021 By By Audra Streetman - CBS4 Denver

Weird, misleading headline (not necessarily by intent), here's the money point.

In the complaint filed on July 14, Denver Water claims Boulder County overreached its authority through repeated requests for information about the project. In a statement, Denver Water said the delays put the entire project at risk:

“Boulder County is endangering the project through delays, repeated and expanding requests for information — information demands that duplicate the already completed federal permitting process in which Boulder County participated — the potential for months of additional hearings and the fact that two of the county’s three commissioners have already publicly stated their opposition to, and desire to stop, the expansion project.”

Good grief; how long has this been going on.

The process to obtain environmental permits for the $380 million project began in 2003.

Not unlike the Central 70 project, "special interests" have caused delay after delay after delay. Seems like the original construction start was planned for 2012 then 2014/2015.

So what do you suppose the increased construction costs from all this delay after delay will be? I'll guess 50% over 2012 updated estimates and that's probably way too conservative. Who cares? Liberals couldn't care less. After all it will simply fall to the Denver Water users to foot the bill. No big deal, eh?

-------------------

Originally Posted by wong21fr

It was news to most people. But they buried the lead with the hyperlink mentioning keeping hydro power going as that was the main reason for the drains in order to keep AHP flowing to WAPA CRSP customers. Most hydro power in the Western US goes to rural co-ops to keep electric rates low for agricultural interests. If Glen Canyon and Hoover can't produce... well those communities would be royally fucked.

It's quite terrifying how much of the rural West is underpinned by cheap hydro that has no substitute.

I do enjoy your depth of knowledge on many topics.